Supreme Court Case May Impact EA's NFL Exclusive
Supreme Court Case May Impact EA's NFL Exclusive
March 5, 2009
A non-gaming case currently before the United States Supreme Court stands to have a massive impact on the video game industry.
The case is American Needle vs New Orleans Saints, et al. Should the Supreme Court find in favor of plaintiff American Needle, an apparel manufacturer, EA's exclusive NFL licensing deal and Take-Two's third-party exclusive with Major League Baseball could be found in violation of federal antitrust (i.e., monopoly) statutes. Such a determination would free other publishers to make games based on the NFL and MLB.
SCOTUSblog, which tracks happenings before the Supreme Court, reports on the case:
The NFL used to license American Needle to sell hats that bore the logos, the names or other insignia of pro football teams... But, in 2000, the NFL opted to solicit bids for an exclusive license to produce caps and other headwear. Reebok won the bidding, and in 2001 got an exclusive ten-year license. American Needle’s license was not renewed. So it sued the NFL, all of its teams, NFL Properties, and Reebok.
American Needle’s case was thrown out by lower courts... “The [Supreme] Court has stated, on more than one occasion,” American Needle asserted, “that application of the Sherman Act to professional sports teams is wholly consistent with Congressional inent...”
What happened to American Needle in relation to apparel is essentially what happened to Take-Two in regard to its excellent NFL2K series when EA scored its exclusive license with the NFL in 2004.
Attorneys for EA are clearly tracking the American Needle case. The phrase "American Needle" appears nine times in a transcript of arguments made by attorneys last November in Pecover vs. Electronic Arts, a class-action suit which alleges that consumers were hurt by EA's NFL exclusive (see: Spirited Courtroom Argument Highlights Madden Monopoly Case).
SCOTUSblog reports that the Supreme Court has requested government lawyers to weigh in on the case.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I don't think that the EA+NFL or 2K+MLB suit would work out because it's a temporary exclusive. On top of that, I belive for any anti-trust suit to pass through the product being tested must also prove to be necessary for moderen society. The previous anti-trust suits are on the following of two basis. Lack of competition+Need for modern society. With Oil there is an obvious need for that product in modern society, with phones there was a need for it in modern society, and for OS software there is a need for it in modern society. NFL and MLB does not fill this area, so I highly doubt it will go through.
The deal before the courts involves a temporary exclusive, though.
which means this probebly wont pass.
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony"
Hm... I guess they can make a point there. I wonder what statements those are though.
I think the Supreme court Justices are going to make fun of the fact that EA held a monopoly on NFL games Heres the possiblility
John Roberts: We the court has found that American needle has been found in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts and therefore we demand that the company should be split up
EA & T2: We're F@**ED, we may have to share the license of MLB and NFL now
END TSG-esce courtroom reenactment
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Wouldn't the NFL teams, players, and logos, fall under IP? IP holders have a right to give exclusive rights to anyone they so choose.
I think the use of the players, teams and logos for the purpose of a football-themed... thing... is protected by the IP.
| XBOX LIVE GamerTag: Harry Miste | Steam ID: Harry Miste | PSN ID: HarryMiste | Needs a thesaurus. |
I believe it counts as IP, but EA has exclusive deals with the NFL and the NFLPA (as well as the coaches union I believe); the former for the use of the team logos, stadiums, etc. and the latter to use the names of the players.
Um, shouldn't the NFL have the right to say who can and can't use their IP?
I'd love to see these exclusive deals get dissolved. Take Two has done an awful job with the MLB license on 360, and I'd love to see "The Show" come to 360.
Bottom line is that competition creates better products. I'm all for that.
This wouldn't be a good thing.
It's the same as saying that McDonalds has no right to the Big Mac.
Private Bussiness is private the last thing we need in this time is more branches of government saying what can and can't be done, and guess what this works for these industries since the NFL,EA, or Take 2 haven't asked for a bailout.
I'm Rooting for the Exclusivity Deals to be dropped by the supreme court(That'll Teach EA and T2 a lesson for hogging the NFL and MLB)
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
This post makes no sense to me
sohbet - sohbet siteleri - özlü sözler - sevgi sözleri - madencilik - sikiş